by Ramon Solis
The United States Supreme Court has mostly struck down Arizona’s controversial anti-immigration bill, thus effectively concluding a hotly contested two-year legal battle. However, perhaps the most controversial aspect of the bill has been ruled valid. Known to some as the “papers please” provision, this law permits police offers to check an individual’s citizenship status given “reasonable suspicion.”
Three of the Supreme Court holdings concerned whether the state of Arizona exceeded its jurisdiction into federal law. In a 5-3 ruling, The Supreme Court struck down these three provisions of Senate Bill 1070, which its authors have titled the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Those dissenting included Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The three parts ruled unconstitutional would have made it a state misdemeanor not to carry citizenship identification, to apply for or work in the state, and allow for warrantless arrest for an allegedly deportable crime. The Supreme Court decided that these three provisions are questions under which the federal government has primary authority, not the states.
The law is being claimed as a victory from Democrats and Republicans alike. Governor Jan Brewer added, “It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens.”
“S.B. 1070 is a far cry from reasonable,” countered Assistant House Minority Leader Steve Farley (D-Tucson), “It lets politicians get away with political grandstanding instead of enacting real reform. We need substantive reform and we need to ensure our police officers have the tools they need to crack down on true criminals and keep our communities safe and secure. I commend the Supreme Court for striking down key parts of this law and forcing politicians to focus on real reform.”
“Overall, I see the victory as one for the federal government, ” said UC Davis Dean and Law Professor Kevin Johnson, “I think that the Court, in finding that the federal government had primary authority over immigration enforcement, relied sensibly and reasonably on existing precedent. The decision on this issue, thus, was well within the mainstream.”
The Obama administration, which began these legal proceedings in the first place, has recently eased immigration laws when it issued an executive order protecting at least 700,000 young illegal immigrants from being deported.
President Obama made a statement today on his victory: “At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion of the court, which was in unanimous agreement that checking for citizenship status was legal.
In so doing, the Supreme Court further positioned immigration issues as areas of federal concern. “It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States,” said Kennedy.
However, Justice Kennedy did note the fuzziness on the bill’s consequent position on detaining. “Even if the law is read as an instruction to complete a check while the person is in custody, moreover, it is not clear at this stage and on this record that the verification process would result in prolonged detention,” wrote Kennedy.
Scalia dissenting opinion defended Arizona’s right to enforce immigration law, writing that “As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress.”
Justice Thomas concurred with Scalia, but for different reasons. Thomas believed that “there is no conflict between the “ordinary meanin[g]” of the relevant federal laws and that of the four provisions of Arizona law at issue here.”
Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, ultimately condemned the decision: “”By reinstating the “show me your papers” for now, the Court has left the door open to racial profiling and illegal detentions in Arizona. The ACLU has amassed an $8.77 million war chest to fight those battles in court and to counter any and every anti-immigrant copycat measure in other states. The xenophobic virus in Arizona must be contained before it spreads to other states. These laws will devastate local economies, undermine law enforcement and pit neighbor against neighbor. It’s a toxic combination that threatens basic American values.”
UC Davis Law Professor Jack Chin, together with University of Arizona Professor Marc L. Miller, wrote in an online symposium blog post that “whether S.B. 1070 allows or indeed mandates racial profiling is left for another day.” Chin and Miller note that a provision in S.B. 1070 effectively authorizes racial profiling. They also suggest other inherent problems with this bill and other similar bills around the country:
“To the extent that S.B. 1070 is about message and not meaning, perhaps S.B. 1070 and its cousins in Alabama and elsewhere will fade of their own accord. These laws are costing the states huge amounts of money, and greater amounts of respect. Prosecutorial and police discretion is one place bad laws go to die.”
The legal battle will continue, however. The ruling leaves opportunity for further lawsuits. Arizona Governor Brewer weighed in, “Of course, today’s ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to S.B. 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law.”
—Ramon Solis reporting
[quote]The United States Supreme Court has mostly struck down Arizona’s controversial anti-immigration bill, thus effectively concluding a hotly contested two-year legal battle. However, perhaps the most controversial aspect of the bill has been ruled constitutional. Known to some as the “papers please” provision, this law permits police offers to check an individual’s citizenship status given “reasonable suspicion.”[/quote]
[quote]Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, ultimately condemned the decision: “”By reinstating the “show me your papers” for now, the Court has left the door open to racial profiling and illegal detentions in Arizona. The ACLU has amassed an $8.77 million war chest to fight those battles in court and to counter any and every anti-immigrant copycat measure in other states. The xenophobic virus in Arizona must be contained before it spreads to other states. These laws will devastate local economies, undermine law enforcement and pit neighbor against neighbor. It’s a toxic combination that threatens basic American values.”[/quote]
I would say this was not seen as a victory for those opposed to the Arizona law and it certainly was not a victory for the Obama Administration that took this to the Supreme Ct. Illegal immigration is a thorny issue, and border states that have recurrent problems w illegal immigrants have been forced to do something as drastic as craft their own legislation bc the feds won’t address the problem in a systemic way (neither side of the aisle)…
So what should it be seen as?
Interesting 2012 politics playing out here related to the Latino vote. Arizona is a swing state with 30% Latino voters. Using their divide and conquer strategy, the perpetual Obama administration-campaign is betting that they already have the Latino vote in Arizona. Their problem is that they have continued to alienate more non-Latino Arizona voters. For example, in a punitive measure in response to the SCOTUS decision, Obama has already announced a reduction in Federal Homeland Security Department authorities that are deployed to Arizona.
The fact that the Latino vote is even this much of a consideration and politicians are pandering to them as a group is evidence that the US immigration policy has failed to protect the US as a sovereign nation. We have let a foreign country invade us over several years, and now their people infest our democracy and corrupt our politics.
If Romney played the game like Obama, he would start making the case that so much illegal immigration from south of the border has had a devastating impact on the black population. Specifically, cheap Mexican labor has depressed the job market for young black males.
Divide and conquer. That is what Obama would do. Somehow I doubt Romney will do this. He is a better man.
[quote]So what should it be seen as?[/quote]
A wake-up call the feds need to address the illegal immigration problem, e.g. guest worker program, etc.
How do you figure?
[quote]How do you figure?[/quote]
States wouldn’t feel the need to pass laws like this if the feds were at least attempting some sort of immigration reform. It is my understanding that other states are poised w their own version of the Arizona law. States w immigration problems are frustrated bc the feds won’t do anything…
Obama to border states:
“You must suffer continued and growing economic harm from the Federal government’s refusal to take measures necessary to control the borders and deal with 12-20 million illegal immigrants, because to do so would harm me politically.”
Romney to border states:
“I support states sovereign rights, but I cannot speak freely and frankly about immigration because it would potentially harm me politically.”
Sad in both cases.
Elaine: Problem is that we don’t really have an agreement at the national level as to what the immigration policy should look like and even at the local level, measures like this are highly divisive and polarizing.
I think Jon Stewart covered the ‘winners and losers’ angle:
[url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-25-2012/arizona-winners—losers[/url]
Hi all,
My name is Ramon Solis, a recent addition to the Vanguard team. Nice to be here. I hope you find my news coverage meaningful.
Every Democrat should watch these clips:
[url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-25-2012/exclusive—marco-rubio-extended-interview-pt–1[/url]
[url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-25-2012/exclusive—marco-rubio-extended-interview-pt–2[/url]
[url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-25-2012/exclusive—marco-rubio-extended-interview-pt–3[/url]
[i]Every Democrat should watch these clips:
[/i]
Why?
(Welcome, Ramon! Good to see this coverage at the Vanguard.)
No provisions of the law were ruled constitutional. See [url]http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/how-jan-brewer-and-many-others-got-arizona-supreme-court-ruling-wrong[/url]
“Every Democrat should watch these clips”
Don Shor: “Why?”
It provides a valuable learning opportunity.
No, I didn’t learn anything from Rubio’s comments. It’s all standard rhetoric I’ve heard before. It’s always entertaining to watch Stewart interview conservatives, and Rubio is articulate. But he didn’t veer much from the standard talking points.
I’m curious as to what you thought a Democrat would learn from watching those clips.
Several things to learn.
I think the most interesting is illumination of the lack of discussion from the left and media about the change in normal senatorial practice – a Senate that has been Democrat controlled since 2007 – where Democrats have been denying amendments and bills from the GOP Senators. Without the ability to participate in the crafting of legislation through standard protocol, the GOP has no choice but to either accept what they see as legislative dog food, or filibuster. No doubt that this tactic had been used before by the GOP when it controlled the Senate, but nothing close to this extent. It gives a new perspective to which party is the party of no and which party is the bully owning the bully pulpit. The GOP as the victim? Who’d of thought?
In addition, this is a good conversation that illuminates the key differences in ideological thinking on social/economic policy and related to this the point Stewart made that he sees Rubio as living on some different planet. What Stewart said is worthy of consideration for several reasons. Also is the fact that he said it and Rubio did not.
One more thing that was interesting. Rubio said that the only way to solve our fiscal problems is to grow the economy. Stewart, representing the left worldview, seemed to agree with this. Assuming this is a common agreement between people with left and right worldviews, it would seem the Dems and GOP should be making a lot more progress discussing their differnece on HOW to get this done. However, they are not. In this conversation, there are answers to why they are not, and much of it is owned by Democrat politicians despite the left and media narrative that the GOP is blocking progress.
Lastly, it provides Democrats a look at a future GOP presidential candidate they should fear. Because he is charismatic and friendly and smart and minority and has no private-sector business experience to demonize. Sound familiar?
I am still waiting for a correction on the part of the article that says, “However, perhaps the most controversial aspect of the bill has been ruled constitutional.” Again, no aspect of the bill was ruled constitutional.
Everything has worked out pretty well; big money has bought the advertising that brings to the forefront the players (aka candidates) for the presidency; who when elected nominate those Supreme Court Justices who happen to pass rulings like “Citizens United” and this latest immigration/states rights ruling. Not that considerations of big business would have any influence in any of their rulings; of course they only work in the best interests of American citizens (ridiculous to think of any effective redefinition as corporate citizens of the world).
“Known to some as the “papers please” provision, this law permits police offers to check an individual’s citizenship status given “reasonable suspicion.””
Welcome Ramon ! I will be looking forward to reading more from you.
With regard to this piece, my understanding is that this law does more than “permit police officers to check….” it mandates them to do so. It is in this portion, after listening to comments from the Chief of Police in Tucson, where I lived for two years that I think the problem may lie. In his view, this mandate will open the police to a battery of lawsuits from both sides. Lawsuits claiming that they are not meeting the recuirements of the law, and lawsuits from those claiming that the enforcement of the law entails racial profiling. It is hard to see how enforcement of an ordnance based on such a subjective statement of “reasonable suspicion” would not lead to complaints of “racial profiling in a community such as Tucson. In any event, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
[b]Correction:[/b] In the second sentence, the last word has been changed from “constitutional” to “valid.”
[b]Rationale:[/b] Three holdings in [i]Arizona v. United States[/i] were held to be unconstitutional, or more specifically, in violation of Article VI, Clause II of the U.S. constitution (i.e. the Supremacy Clause). The fourth holding, which was on section 2(B) of Senate Bill 1070, also known as the “papers please” provision, bore no direct relation to constitutional law. In other words, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there language on “papers please”.
Although “constitutional” denotes a specific type of “legality”, the word does not describe the type of legality the Supreme Court determined in SB 1070’s Section 2(B). It suffices instead to say that to the Supreme Court, the S.B. 1070 provision was upheld, or, in a word, “valid”.
I apologize for the mistake, and thank user davisite4 for identifying it.
It wasn’t held to be “valid,” either. Did you read the link I gave above? Here it is again:
[url]http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/how-jan-brewer-and-many-others-got-arizona-supreme-court-ruling-wrong[/url]
[i]”…where Democrats have been denying amendments and bills from the GOP Senators…”[/i]
Yeah. [url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/rand-paul-personhood-abortion-flood-insurance.php[/url]
One more learning opportunity for people with left-leaning political views. There is not much understanding, or else it is denial, of the public economic policy causes and impacts for capital investment to grow the economy. Rubio explains it well. There is over $1 trillion in capital sitting in accounts… mostly low interest bearing accounts, because of economic uncertaintly. Obamacare and the threat of tax increase through the expiration of previous tax reform measures, has only added to the other uncertainty caused by so many volatile economic indicators and the financial mess in Europe.
There are indicators that now is the time for US economic policy to spur investment. However, the political class wars rage and the left’s fear of the rich getting richer prevent us from making those moves. Meanwhile capital sits in accounts instead of creating and expanding business to produce more jobs.
[i]”…where Democrats have been denying amendments and bills from the GOP Senators…”
Yeah. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…urance.php[/i]
The point is that Reid blocking GOP bills and amendments establishes a practice of GOP obstruction. The Democrats are in control of the Senate. Doesn’t the left expect the more powerful to reach out to the less powerful to forge bridges of cooperation and compromise?
Hoping for a new correction to the article….
[quote]Elaine: Problem is that we don’t really have an agreement at the national level as to what the immigration policy should look like and even at the local level, measures like this are highly divisive and polarizing.[/quote]
So the feds shouldn’t even try? IMO that is an abject abdication of responsibility; and will force more states to pass their own form of immigration reform…
How do you “try” if no one agrees on how to go about “trying”? It is not that no one has tried, we have a long history of attempts, most recently by Bush, but there has never been enough consensus to get legislation through to change policy.
From the Mother Jones article:
[quote]Although it’s anyone’s guess how the court might ultimately rule on the “papers, please” provision, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion gives very specific guidance on how that part of the law should be enforced. That suggests that in the future, the court could very well find the provision unconstitutional—meaning that Brewer’s celebration was beyond premature. [/quote]
If Justice Kennedy gave guidance on how that particular part of the law that was not struck down should be enforced, it would seem to me it is very likely Arizona law enforcement will pay heed to the edicts of the high court on this issue. I see no reason to think Arizona won’t do just fine implementing its own now pared down version of “immigration reform” in a lawful manner…
[quote]How do you “try” if no one agrees on how to go about “trying”? It is not that no one has tried, we have a long history of attempts, most recently by Bush, but there has never been enough consensus to get legislation through to change policy.[/quote]
So the feds should throw up their hands in frustration and give up? Really? Perhaps we need Senators and Representatives to grow up, stop acting like children, and start working together to solve problems. Perhaps it is time to throw ideological bums out of Congress, and start putting in more moderates that can play nice and work together…
To dmg: It really sounds as if you have a defeatist mind set, which surprises me in someone so young and idealistic. Nothing is easy, but that doesn’t mean you stop trying… ever…
Immigration reform might move forward after the presidential election, regardless of the outcome. But the main schism is in the Republican Party on that issue. Tea Party activists strongly oppose anything they construe as amnesty, and that includes DREAM and anything resembling a path toward citizenship. They will threaten a primary challenge against any Republican officeholder who tries to compromise on immigration.
Elaine: Good luck with that. BTW, I don’t think I said people should stop trying, only that I expect that it will not be successful.
“surprises me in someone so young and idealistic. “
I’ve been old and cynical for awhile now.
Elaine: I would also add that while I think we could probably use a program that allowed people a way to residency status, I think that the crisis of illegal immigration and the reaction by states like Arizona is largely an overreaction based on fear and in some cases overt prejudice rather than any real crisis.
[i]”How do you “try” if no one agrees on how to go about “trying”?[/i]
Actually, if you remove the extremists and political agendas, there is pretty broad consensus about the topic of immigration within the American voter population.
Most Americans what to focus on stopping the flow of illegal immigrant before dealing with the people here.
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/immigration3.jpg[/img]
And, most want to see the level of immigration decreased or remain the same.
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/immigration5.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/immigration8.jpg[/img]
Which is a good thing, because much of the rest of the world wants to migrate here:
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/immigration6.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/immigration8.jpg[/img]
But it is interesting that most Hispanic voters care less about immigration than other things.
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/immigration4.jpg[/img]
And, most voters in general see immigration as being way down the list of current concerns. They put the economy first.
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/worries0.jpg[/img]
And jobs and deficits are high on the list for economic worries.
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/worries1.jpg[/img]
So then, why did Obama push the temporary dream act, and why is the media making immigration a headline story again?
The reason: Obama cannot run on the economy – the #1 priority for voters. He can only foment class and race issues in the hope to keep tarnishing the GOP brand.
Voters do not seem to support the Obama/Democrat policy and actions on immigration. They also don’t seem to care too much about this issue his campaign and the left media is trying to drive to the front of the Presidential debate.
Arizona and other border states are also stuck here as concern over immigration has been trumped by the economy. Obama appears to be throwing these border state’s concerns under his campaign bus.
[quote]Elaine: I would also add that while I think we could probably use a program that allowed people a way to residency status, I think that the crisis of illegal immigration and the reaction by states like Arizona is largely an overreaction based on fear and in some cases overt prejudice rather than any real crisis.[/quote]
No real crisis? Here is but a few examples: [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57446515-504083/five-bodies-found-in-torched-suv-in-arizona-likely-drug-related-violence-police-say/[/url]
[quote](CBS/AP) PINAL COUNTY, Ariz. – An Arizona sheriff says five bodies found burned beyond recognition inside a charred SUV are likely the result of drug cartel violence.[/quote]
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/29/arizona-beheading-raises-fears-drug-violence/[/url]
[quote]The gruesome case of a man who was stabbed and beheaded in a suburban Phoenix apartment has police investigating whether the killing is potentially the most extreme example of Mexican drug cartel violence spilling over the border.[/quote]
[url]http://www.kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/border.cfm[/url]
[quote]Insufficient resources dedicated to border security, coupled with a lack of will to effectively enforce the law, have allowed an average of 500,000 individuals each year since 2000 to cross our borders illegally or overstay their visas. Arizona bears the brunt of this illegal immigration problem: approximately 40 percent of all illegal immigrants entering the United States are apprehended in the Tucson Sector. The effects of this are felt throughout our state, with public schools, health-care delivery systems, the criminal justice system, and even our precious desert environment all suffering serious adverse consequences.
A February 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) underscores just how serious the problem has become: GAO estimates that the Border Patrol has operational control of less than half of the southwestern border – just 44 percent. Sophisticated and especially brutal drug cartel operations are reaching into Arizona’s border communities, and many areas of public lands have been put off-limits because of the increased violence. Obviously, Arizona’s border needs to be better secured. [/quote]
[url]http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/mexican-drug-violence-marches-north-7039[/url]
[quote]But there are a growing number of unsettling incidents. In February of this year, a bullet from a gun battle between two drug gangs in Ciudad Juárez struck a mother across the border pushing a baby stroller in downtown El Paso. In May, a San Diego jury convicted two men in a gruesome killing linked to a breakaway faction of the Tijuana-based Arellano-Felix cartel. The men had executed two rivals and disposed of their bodies by dissolving them in acid. The convicted defendants were the first of seventeen accused assassins to go on trial for cases involving nine victims.
Paul Babeu, the sheriff of Pinal County, has long been worried about the increasingly brazen drug-cartel presence in his county and other portions of southern Arizona. In August 2010, when the federal government posted signs along a sixty-mile stretch of Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend, Arizona, warning motorists that they were entering an “active drug and human smuggling area” where they might encounter “armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed,” Babeu went even further than the federal warning signs. He contended that “Mexican drug cartels literally do control parts of Arizona.”
Homicide rates are not the only measure of whether there has been a spillover effect from Mexico’s drug violence. There is also the matter of intimidation. An incident in 2011 illustrates that problem; farmhands in the Rio Grande valley near the small town of La Joya, Texas, were burning stalks of sugarcane for harvest when four masked men on all-terrain vehicles approached them. The armed men surrounded the crew and ordered them to leave the area. Dale Murden, the farmer who employed the crew, said he had no doubt that the masked men were drug traffickers. “They hide stuff in there,” Murden said, referring to the dense fields of sugarcane, and try to intimidate anyone who gets too close.
The incident on his ranch occurred just two weeks after a Hidalgo County, Texas, employee was similarly threatened by masked men and ordered to stop clearing brush along a small river near the border. In early March, men in a pickup truck fired shots at a foreman on a ranch adjacent to property owned by country-music star George Strait.
Texas ranchers and farmers—as well as their counterparts in New Mexico and Arizona—contend that episodes similar to the one Murden’s workers experienced are growing more and more frequent.[/quote]
None of that screams crisis. You’ll note the Fox News story is heavily nuanced.
Most of the concerns that you have laid out here would be alleviated with more sensible drug laws and immigration policies that allowed people who wanted to come to this country to work, to do so.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/us/24border.html[/url]
[quote]PHOENIX — The raging drug war among cartels in Mexico and their push to expand operations in the United States has led to a wave of kidnappings, shootings and home invasions in Arizona, state and federal officials said at a legislative hearing on Monday.
The drug trade has long brought violence to the state, which serves as a hub as illicit drugs, like cocaine and marijuana, and illegal immigrants are smuggled to the rest of the nation.
Over all, in this city and surrounding Maricopa County, homicides and violent crime decreased last year. But the authorities are sounding an alarm over what they consider changing tactics in border-related crime that bear the marks of the violence in Mexico.
A home invasion here last year was carried out by attackers wielding military-style rifles and dressed in uniforms similar to a Phoenix police tactical unit. The discovery of grenades and other military-style weaponry bound for Mexico is becoming more routine, as is hostage-taking and kidnapping for ransom, law enforcement officials said.
The Phoenix police regularly receive reports involving a border-related kidnapping or hostage-taking in a home.[/quote]